Appearantly god gave us these complex, amazing brains that he doesnt want us to use. Hmmmm....threeve...a combination of three and five. Simply stunning.

Lord May admitted that this is not an easy task - however, there never has been a time when science has had it easy. Reason has never "won" out over emotional spiritualism.

Consider that to this day there are millions of people who think it is absolutley impossible for other planets to exist and for any life of any kind to exist upon those non-existant planets. I was talking with a friend who is a very staunch Christain and he flat out told me that it is impossible that there is life anywhere else in the Universe. His explanation? God didn't tell us in the Bible, therefore... (So, I guess automobiles don't exist either(.

Some headway has been made, The Flat Earth Society was disbanded in 2004, only 45 years after Sputnik circumnavigated the globe. Hmmm...

I remember a paraphrase that may be apropos here: The only way that ignorance can win out over reason is for reasonable people to do nothing."

Lord May encourages people to become active in their efforts to educate the masses. It isn't only about evolution - many fundamentalists want to roll back any teachings in scinece or public schools that does not conform to the teaching of the Bible. Even though the Bible is not the only sacred text that school attendees embrace.

This, to me, is alarming and truly coincides with the article about the rise of fascism.

There is now a sedition law being considered here in Australia that will limit free speech. It isn't only in America.

Consider you cannot even type the word "freedom" in an email in China.

Do we really want this?

Fundamentalism is a growing danger in our society today, right up there with multinational corporations. What to do, what to do?

Katrina is a product of bad religion. No good religion would say that scientists can be ignored. Science is essential to good faith.

There is no conflict between science and religion - the whole appearance of a conflict has been worked up by politics and evangelism. If we could disconnect these the problem will go away.

E = M C squared.

Earth = Muslim Conservative squared.

EurFreaka!

("squared" being slang for a swift kick in the gonads)

I think the discussion about whether a conflict exists between religion and science is quite interesting. I have this discussion quite frequently with my mom. I have a bachelor's degree from a religiously-affiliated university, and I am currently pursuing a master's degree in environmental policy from a non-religious, major science and research university -so I think I bring to this conversation some of both sides. Just out of curiosity I looked up the definitons of religion, science, and faith - I found it quite interesting. People can use words to mean many things - but can you really define religion without including belief in a supernatural being? And if you say you believe in a supernatural being, how can you also be a scientist, or accept scientific principles? One is to accept completely without proof, the other is to seek proof. These seem in conflict to me. I am really curious how you reconcile this.

Here were the definitions (From Merriam Webster online) Religion – Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance Faith - Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust Science - Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

"Fundamentalism is hampering global efforts to tackle climate change, according to Britain's top scientist"

It is not just fundamentalism, but rather right-wing conservatism which is hampering these efforts to tackle climate change.

When I was doing some research yesterday on some claims that Joe made, I ran across all of these conservative right-wing web blogs. Every single one of these blogs had something to say about how a bunch of hippie, feminazi, idiotic, radical environmentalists are exaggerating the effects that humans have on the climate because this just makes them feel better about themselves in the comfort of their expensive condos and that they are a bunch of hypocrits.

Joe is not a fundamentalist from what I can tell, and yet people like him are going around campaigning against efforts to do something about global climate change.

And just to clarify, not all Christians are fundamentalists, obviously, and there are many liberal Christians who are staunch Democrats working to protect our environment.

A lady I work with is a Mormon, yet she is a member of Greenpeace. (But husband is a member of the NRA).

That's my once cents for this morning..

I think what is hampering global efforts to tackle climate change is multinational corporations. To cut back on consumption and improve our energy policies would hurt their profit margin.

I really don't think the corporations or politicians give a flip about religion but they aren't beneath cynically using religion as cover for their deeds. Their aim is to get your eye off the ball.

I suggest everyone read: Sun Tzu's The Art of War and Machiavelli's The Prince to see what the "other side" reads and uses to plot strategy.

Also, here's an article called Environmentalists find help in evangelical movement. "The National Association of Evangelicals, a nonprofit organization that includes 45,000 churches serving 30 million people throughout the country..."

Keep in mind that evangelical's overwhelming vote conservative. And then there are all those liberal christians, catholics and jews who vote with the democrats on enviromental issues. So keeping all this in mind, which segment of religious people are supposed to be against enviromentalism? Hmmmm......(take that, Sun Tzu and Machiavelli!)

Hannah, you make a valid point about the real crux of the problem being multinational corporations. I have read The Prince, but have never read Sun Tsu's The Art of War; thank you for this recommendation.

I think that you will find this transcript of an interview of Lewis Lapham by Bill Moyes (NOW) very interesting. ">http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_lapham.html>

"can you really define religion without including belief in a supernatural being?"

Simply, belief in that which is beyond all perception. But that is not supernatural. ID is wrong for Christians because it is both bad religion and terrible science. ID is a mandate for ignorance.

Consider, we can perceive nine tenths of the Universe only because we can calculate mass. We can see only one tenth of the Universe. What about the rest? If a body existed that we could not possibly perceive, does that mean it could not possibly exist? And what of the unknowable? Could there be facts that exists beyond perception as well?

DirtMan,

It would be interesting to disrupt the ID movement by describing that idea as a bastardization of Christianity that disrupted teh True Teachings of God's Paln in the Bible.. wicked grin

Heck, even the Catholic Church agrees that Evolution was part of God's Plan. long sigh I'll bet only one out of ten Catholics even KNOW that.

Hannah,

Excellent post!

I am angry at Conservatives (arrogant, corrupt and currently using the poor Religious Right to stay in power) but I am even MORE angry at the inept leadership of the Democratic Party. Where are the grat leaders? Where is the cohesion?

I understand that Liberals in general tend to agree that other people's points of view have merit, but Why Oh Why do they suck so bad at manipulating the Press? Consistant Talking Points anyone?

-C